Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 9

Naming Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria – a bacteriologist’s view

Aharon Or e n

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Life Sciences, and the Moshe Shilo Minerva Center for Marine Biogeochemistry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel; tel.: +972–2– 6584951, fax: +972–2–6584425, e–mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper provides information on the origin and the etymology of the names of genera of Cyanophyta/ Cyanobacteria in current use and on the way new names are formed under the provisions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Special emphasis is placed on the differences between the two Codes that should be taken into account when creating new names compatible both with the botanical and with the bacteriological nomenclature system, to support the ongoing efforts to harmonize the nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under the two Codes.

Key words: Cyanobacteria, Cyanophyta, Halothece, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, Nostoc

Introduction Li n n a e u s , as shown by the case of Nostoc discussed below. “The knowledge of classical Latin and Greek is This short essay was written with two permanently decreasing”. Thus complained Ha n s purposes. The first is to provide those who Tr ü p e r (1999) in this exemplary essay on “How to work with Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria some name a prokaryote? Etymological considerations, information about the origin and the etymology proposals and practical advice in prokaryotic of their names. The question “What’s in a name”1 nomenclature”. Issues relating to etymology, often allows interesting insights into the nature Latin, and Greek are equally relevant to the of these organisms. An understanding of the nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria ways names were given in the past is also highly which was not discussed in–depth by Tr ü p e r relevant when suitable names should found to (1999, 2001). describe newly discovered genera and species. With over 250 names of genera described Table 1 therefore presents a glossary that contains (see http://www.cyanodb.cz/valid_genera), most of the elements found in the generic names the cyanobacteria are a relatively large group of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria. Unfortunately of prokaryotes. For comparison, the current the authors who proposed the names seldom list of genera with standing in the prokaryote provided their etymology. Therefore guesswork nomenclature (http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/ was sometimes needed, and comments and number.html#total), a list that contains only very corrections relating to this list are welcome. Some few cyanobacterial names, encompasses about elements used in the names are derived from 1900 names. Latin, but Greek words dominate. Botanists who The history of some of the cyanobacterial described all those genera in the past have made names is much longer than the nomenclatural a particularly creative use of the Greek dictionary. history of most other prokaryotes. When in I hope that the glossary will be helpful to those 1875 Fe r d i n a n d Coh n classified bacteria in six who deal with cyanobacterial names, so that the genera, many cyanobacterial genera had already dictum “It was Greek to me”2 will not apply to been named by botanists such as Ha n s Ch r i s t i a n students of cyanobacteria. Ly n g b y e (1782–1837), Ca r l Ad o p h Ag a r d h (1785–1859), and others. Some scientific names of cyanobacteria in current use even predate 1 Sh a k e s p e a r e , Romeo and Juliet 2 Sh a k e s p e a r e , Julius Caesar 10 Or e n : Cyanobacterial nomenclature

The second reason for presenting this information substantive (noun) in the genitive case (Rule is the ongoing effort to harmonize the 12c). Under the Botanical Code, the rules are nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria less strict: “The epithet in the name of a species under the two Codes: the International Code of may be taken from any source whatever, and Botanical Nomenclature (McNe i ll et al. 2007) – may even be composed arbitrarily” (Art. 23.2). ‘the Botanical Code’, and the International Code The Bacteriological Code does not enable the of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (formerly the formation of a specific epithet such as used International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria) in Microcystis ichthyoblabe (from Greek (La p a g e et al. 1992) – ‘the Bacteriological Code’. ἰχθύς = fish; βλάβη = damage), but under the Although the provisions in both Codes for naming Botanical Code such an epithet can be validly new genera and species are quite similar, minor published, even if Recommendation 23A.3(a) differences exist, and these should be taken into suggests “To use Latin terminations insofar as account when creating new names compatible possible”. both to the ’botanical’ and to the ‘bacteriological’ 3. Under the Bacteriological Code, the derivation nomenclature system. (etymology) of a new name must be given (Rule 27.2(b) as modified in 1999) (De Vo s & Tr ü p e r 2000). Under the Botanical Code, the The rules of the Codes specification of the etymology of the new name is a recommendation only: “The etymology of Most genera and species of Cyanophyta/ new names or of epithets in new names should Cyanobacteria have been named under the rules be given, especially when their meaning is not of the Botanical Code; see also Com p è r e (2005) obvious” (Recommendation 60H.1). for valuable comments on the way names are 4. Use of hyphens in specific epithets is not formed under the provisions of this Code. Only allowed under the rules of the Bacteriological a few generic names have been published under Code. “If an epithet has been hyphenated, its the provisions of the Bacteriological Code. parts should be joined. The name retains its Examples are Halospirulina, Planktotricoides, validity and standing in nomenclature” (Rule Prochlorothrix, and Rubidibacter (Or e n & 12a). Under the Botanical Code, the use of Ti n d a ll 2005; Or e n et al. 2009). the hyphen is allowed, both in generic names When comparing the rules of nomenclature (Article 20.3) and in specific epithets (Article there are a number of interesting differences 23.1; see also Article 60.9). Therefore names between both Codes: containing a hyphen such as Anabaena flos– aquae and Dolichospermum torques–reginae 1. According to Principle I of the Botanical Code, [torquis–reginae would be grammatically “Botanical nomenclature is independent of preferable!] are allowed under the Botanical zoological and bacteriological nomenclature”. Code. Recommendation 23A.3(d) states However, the formerly similar Principle 2 that authors should avoid creating specific of the Bacteriological Code was modified in epithets formed of two or more hyphenated 1999, and now states that “The nomenclature words, and recommendation 23A.3(b) warns of Prokaryotes is not independent of botanical against the creation of epithets that are very and zoological nomenclature” (De Vo s & long and difficult to pronounce in Latin. Tr ü p e r 2000). Therefore it is still possible Not all authors, however, have followed to use a generic name with standing in the these recommendations, as the example of prokaryote nomenclature to name a new genus Coelosphaerium evidenter–marginatum shows of plants, including cyanobacteria, but the (Az e v e d o & Sa n t ’An n a 1999). opposite is no longer allowed. 2. Under both Codes, scientific names of Diacritical signs are not allowed in genus and taxonomic groups are treated as Latin. Under species names under both Codes (Rule 64 of the the Bacteriological Code, a specific epithet must Bacteriological Code; Art. 60.6 of the Botanical be treated in one of the three following ways: 1. Code). The name Chamaesiphon komárekii As an adjective that must agree in gender with (Rott 2008) was thus created in violation of the generic name, 2. As a substantive (noun) the regulations, and should be corrected to in apposition in the nominative case, 3. As a Chamaesiphon komarekii. Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 11

Overall the rules of the Botanical Code allow more field. Thus we have genera such as Borzia and ways to create new generic names and specific Borzinema (honoring An to n i o Bo r z i , 1852–1921), epithets than does the Bacteriogical Code. In view Geitleria and Geitlerinema (Loth a r Ge i tl e r , of the attempts to harmonize the nomenclature 1899–1990), Gomontiella (Ma u r i c e Gomo n t , of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under both 1839–1909), Jaaginema (Otto Ja a g , 1900–1978), Codes, it is recommended that new names to be Lemmermanniella (Er n s t Joh a n n Le mm e r m a n n , added in the future should be compatible with the 1867–1915), Lyngbya and Leptolyngbya (Ha n s provisions of both Codes. Ch r i s t i a n Ly n g b y e , 1782–1837), Stanieria (Ro g e r St a n i e r , 1916–1982), and others. Undoubtedly there are more distinguished The case of Halothece californica colleagues who have contributed much to the taxonomy of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria In view of the above considerations, the case and deserve to be honored with a name of a of the description of Halothece californica cyanobacterial genus. However, this is not always (Ma r g h e r i et al. 2008) is to some extent a missed simple. For example: in the cases of Fr i e d r i ch opportunity. The paper intended to provide a Kü t z i n g (1807–1893) and Ca r l Ad ol p h Ag a r d h description of a new genus and species in a form (1785–1859), Kuetzingia is already a rhodophyte that should be compatible first of all with the genus, but “Kuetzingiella” can still be used; the requirements of the Botanical Code, but with the name Agardhia apparently has been already Bacteriological Code as well. However, Principle used for more than one botanical taxon (see the 3 of Bacteriological Code states that “The Index Nominum Genericorum – A compilation scientific names of all taxa are Latin or latinized of generic names published for organisms words treated as Latin regardless of their origin” covered by the International Code of Botanical (see also Rule 6), and Principle V of the Botanical Nomenclature; http://botany.si.edu/ing/). The Code was formulated similarly. Even if the Latin generic name Komarekia (an illegitimate substitute noun theca (a case, a box, a chest) was derived name for Hofmania) was given to a member of from the Greek noun θήκη, the Latin form should the Chlorophyceae to honor Ji ř i Ko m á r e k (Fott be used, and the correct genus name under both 1981), but “Komarekiella” may still be available. codes should therefore be Halotheca (etymology: To honor Fe r d i n a n d Coh n (1828–1898), ha.lo.the’ca; Gr. fem. n. hals, halos, salt; L. fem. who was the first to recognize the affiliation n. theca, box [or Gr. fem. n. thece, to comply with of the Cyanophyceae with the bacteria, with a Recommendation 6(3) of the Bacteriological Code new cyanobacterial genus name will be more and Recommendation 20A.1.(d) of the Botanical complicated. Cohnia is already a genus of Code]; N.L. fem. n. Halotheca, salt box) (Or e n angiosperm plants, and Cohnella is an endospore– 2009a). Moreover, according to current practice forming Gram–positive heterotrophic prokaryote. in prokaryote nomenclature, new ‘geographical’ Principle I of the Botanical Code states that names are formed with the ending –ensis (masc., “Botanical nomenclature is independent of fem.) or –ense (neut.) (Tr ü p e r 1999), and thus zoological and bacteriological nomenclature”, the preferred specific epithet is californiensis so that formally the name Cohnella can still be (ca.li.for.ni.en’sis; N.L. fem. adj. californiensis, proposed. However, this would create a homonym, pertaining to Baja California Sur, Mexico, where which could lead to considerable confusion in the the nomenclatural type was isolated). future. A remaining option is “Ferdinandcohnia” (compare Elizabethkingia, a genus name with standing in the prokaryote nomenclature). Finding Genera of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria named a name for a cyanobacterial genus to honor the to honor famous scientists late Imre Friedmann (1921–2007) (Or e n 2009b) will also be problematic. Friedmannia is already a As customary also for other groups of plants, member of the Chlorophyceae, and Friedmanniella and in the bacteriological nomenclature as well, is a heterotrophic prokaryote belonging to the certain generic names and specific epithets in the Actinobacteria. cyanobacterial nomenclature honor colleagues, When creating names that should obtain both in the past and in the present, who have made standing both in the botanical and in the prokaryote important contributions to our knowledge in the nomenclature, it should be remembered that the 12 Or e n : Cyanobacterial nomenclature

Botanical Code allows the creation of composite et al. 1980). Based on Rule 10a (“The name of a names such as Borzinema, Geitleribactron etc., genus … is treated as a Latin substantive”), it is but Appendix 9 of the Bacteriological Code no longer possible to create a name such as Nostoc (Tr ü p e r & Eu z é b y 2009) states only two ways to under the rules of the Bacteriological Code, unless form a generic name from a personal name, either a Latin ending will be added. directly or as a diminutive; both are always in the Based on Article 20.1 of the Botanical feminine gender. Still, the Code does not forbid Code, there is no problem with the newly proposing compound nouns based on personal proposed generic name Desmoc (Hr o u z e k et names, and two such names were added in 2009: al. 2010), a combination of Gr. δέσμος = band, Gordonibacter and Rummelliibacillus. binding material, and part of the last syllable of ‘Nasenloch’ used nearly five hundred years ago to coin the name Nostoc. However, to the opinion The slimy world of cyanobacterial nomen- of the author the name does not sound very clature elegant. Moreover, in a time attempts are made to harmonize the treatment of the nomenclature of Many cyanobacteria excrete polysaccharide the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under both Codes, slimes, and this property is expressed in many it is to be recommended that newly formed generic generic names and specific epithets. The element names should meet the standards not only of the ‘gloeo’ or ‘gloea’ (Gr. γλοιός = gum, resin, Botanical Code, but also of Rule 10a and the oil) is found in the genus names Gloeothece, other provisions of the Bacteriological Code, and Gloeotrichia, Chlorogloea, and Chondrogloea. that information on the etymology of the newly We further findBlennothrix (Gr. βλεννός = slime), proposed names should be provided as well. Lithomyxa and Myxosarcina (Gr. μύξα = discharge from the nose), and Hydrocoleum glutinosum (L. glutinosus = viscous, sticky). Final comments The most interesting ‘slimy’ generic name is undoubtedly Nostoc. The etymology of this This short essay shows that there are quite a name was disclosed in a delightful essay by Pott s number of interesting, and generally little known, (1997). The name predates the establishment of features in the nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/ binomial nomenclature by Li n n a e u s , and can Cyanobacteria. Scientists who work with these be attributed to the 16th century Swiss scientist, prokaryotes rarely realize the source of the names alchemist and philosopher Au r e ol u s Ph i l i p p u s of the organisms studied. Still, an understanding Th e o p h r a s t u s Bom b a s t u s vo n Hoh e n h e i m (1493– of the nomenclature (ideally backed up by some 1541), better known under the name Pa r a c e l s u s . basic knowledge of Latin and Greek) can be The original spelling is Nostoch, and this word helpful and provide an insight into the nature of was most probably derived from a combination the taxa. An in–depth understanding of the ways of the Old English ‘Nosthryl’ and the German scientific names are formed and validly published ‘Nasenloch’, two words that mean exactly the is essential for those who wish to describe new same: nostril. The name Nostoc soon became genera and species. generally accepted, and the genus Nostoc became Although the Botanical Code and the the type of the family Nostocaceae (Bo r n e t & Bacteriological Code both use the binomial Fl a h a u lt , 1886–1888). The name is a typical system that treats names of taxa as Latin words, case of a generic name composed in an arbitrary there are minor differences between the two manner (Article 20.1 of the Botanical Code). Codes. Attempts toward the harmonization of the We also find the name in the nomenclature treatment of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria under the of non–photosynthetic prokaryotes in Leuconostoc two Codes are underway. Nomenclature matters (with the etymology: Gr. adj. leukos, clear, light; are not the greatest problem here. Much more N.L. neut. n. Nostoc, algal generic name; N.L. important are issues relating to the nature of the type neut. n. Leuconostoc, colorless nostoc) (see http:// material and to central registration and indexing www.bacterio.cict.fr/l/leuconostoc.html). The of validly published names (Or e n & Ti n d a ll name was given to a genus of dextran–producing 2005; Or e n et al. 2009). Based on Art. 45.4 of the lactic acid bacteria in 1878, and was included in Botanical Code, names of cyanobacteria validly the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Sk e r m a n published under the Rules of the Bacteriological Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 13

Code are considered to be validly published also Association for Cyanophyte Research. – p. 20, based on the requirements of the Botanical Code. České Budějovice. If in the future the International Committee on La p a g e , S.P., Sn e a th , P.H.A., Le s s e l , E.F., Sk e r m a n , Systematics of Prokaryotes, the body governing V.B.D., Se e l i g e r , H.P.R. & Cl a r k , W.A. (eds.) the International Code of Nomenclature of (1992): International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 Revision). Bacteriological Code. Prokaryotes (the Bacteriological Code), will be – 189 pp., American Society for Microbiology, able to reciprocate this Art. 45(4), it will appear Washington DC. that quite a few names in current use are not in Ma r g h e r i , M.C., Ve n t u r a , S., Ka š tov s k ý , J. & agreement with the way names are formed under Ko m á r e k , J. (2008): The taxonomic validation that Code. Therefore it is recommended, when of the cyanobacterial genus Halothece. – creating names of new genera and species, to use Phycologia 47: 477–486. names compatible with both Codes. McNe i ll , J., Ba r r i e , F.R., Bu r d e t , H.M., De mo u l i n , V., Ha w k s wo r th , D.L., Ma r hol d , K., Ni col s o n , D.H., Pr a d o , J., Si lv a , P.C., Sk o g , Acknowledgments J.E., Wi e r s e m a , J.H. & Tu r l a n d , N.J. (editors I am grateful to the late E. Imre Friedmann for donating and compilers) (2007): International Code of his marvelous collection of phycology books to the Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code) adopted Jewish National and University Library, Jeruasalem, by the Seventeenth International Botanical thus giving me access to the original editions of the Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005. – 568 pp., publications by Agardh, Bornet & Flahault, Cohn, Gantner, Ruggell. Gomont, Hansgirg, Kützing, Lyngbye, Nägeli, Thuret Or e n , A. (2009a): Commentary – Problems and others which I consulted during the preparation of associated with the taxonomic validation of the this paper. cyanobacterial genus Halothece by Margheri et al. 2008, Phycologia 47: 477–486. – Phycologia 48: 313–314. References Or e n , A. (2009b): E. Imre Friedmann – 1921–2007. – Algological Studies 130: 13–16. Or e n , A. & Ti n d a ll , B.J. (2005): Nomenclature of the Az e v e d o , M.T. d e P. & Sa n t ’An n a , C.L. (1999): Coelosphaerium evidenter–marginatum, a cyanophyta/cyanobacteria/cyanoprokaryotes new planktonic species of Cyanophyceae/ under the International Code of Nomenclature Cyanobacteria from São Paulo State, of Prokaryotes. – Algological Studies 117: 39– Southeastern Brazil. – Algological Studies 94: 52. 35–43. Or e n , A., Ko m á r e k , J. & Ho f f m a n n , L. (2009): Nomenclature of the Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria/ Bo r n e t , E. & Fl a h a u lt , C. (1886–1888): Révision des Nostocacées héterocystées. – Ann. Sc. Nat. Bot., Cyanoprokaryotes – what has happened since sér 7, 3: 323–381 (1886); 4: 343–373 (1886); 5: IAC Luxembourg? – Algological Studies 130: 51–129 (1887); 7: 177–262 (1888). 129–144. Pott s , M. (1997): Etymology of the genus name Com p è r e , P. (2005): The nomenclature of the Cyanophyta under the Botanical Code. – Nostoc (Cyanobacteria). – International Journal Algological Studies 117: 31–37. of Systematic Bacteriology 47: 584. Rott , E. (2008): Chamaesiphon komárekii species De Vo s , P. & Tr ü p e r , H.G. (2000): Judicial Commission of the International Committee nova, a new benthic freshwater chroococcalean on Systematic Bacteriology. IXth International species (Cyanophyta/ Cyanobacteria) from (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied western coniferous forest streams in British Microbiology. Minutes of the meetings, 14, Columbia, Canada. – Algological Studies 126: 15 and 18 August 1999, Sydney, Australia. 37–46. – International Journal of Systematic and Sk e r m a n , V.B.D., McGow a n , V. & Sn e a th , P.H.A. Evolutionary Microbiology 50: 2239–2244. (1980): Approved lists of bacterial names. – International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology Fott , B. 1981: Nomenklatorische Änderungen bei einigen Chlorokokkalalgen. – Preslia 53: 1–7. 30: 225–420. Tr ü p e r , H.G. (1999): How to name a prokaryote? Hr o u z e k , P., Mu g n a i , M.A., Lu k e š o v á , A., Ma s c a l c h i , Etymological considerations, proposals and C., Tu r i c c h i a , S., Ko m á r e k , J. & Ve n t u r a , S. (2010): The genus Nostoc: a polyphyletic practical advice in prokaryotic nomenclature. – assemblage of filamentous cyanobacteria FEMS Microbiology Reviews 23: 231–249. with primitive morphological characters. – In: Tr ü p e r , H.G. (2001): Etymology in nomenclature of Procaryotes. – In: Boo n e , D.R.; Ca s t e n hol z , Ka š tov s k ý , J. & Ha u e r , T. (eds): Abstracts of the 18th Symposium of the International R.W.; Ga r r i t y , G.M. (eds.): Bergey’s Manual 14 Or e n : Cyanobacterial nomenclature

of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed., vol. I. – pp. 89–99, Springer, New York. Tr ü p e r , H.G. & Eu z é b y , J.P. (2009): International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Appendix 9: orthography. – International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 59: 2107–2113.

Table 1. A (non–exhaustive) list of word elements found in genus names of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria, based on the list given in http://www.cyanodb.cz/valid_genera. (Gr.) = Greek; (L.) = Latin. Elements derived from names of persons are not listed.

A Actis (Gr.) ἀκτίς, ray, beam Arbor (L.) arbor, tree Aggregatum (L.) aggrego, join together Arthro– (Gr.) ἀρθρον, a joint Anabena (Gr.) ἀναβαίνω, to go up Aster (Gr.) ἀστήρ, star Aphano– (Gr.) ἀφανής, unseen Aulo– (Gr.) αὐλός, flute Aphanizo– (Gr.) ἀφανίζω, to hide, to make unseen

B Bactron, Bacterium (Gr.) βάκτρον, staff, stick Botrys (Gr.) βότρυς, bunch of grapes Bacula (L.) bacula, small berry Brachy– (Gr.) βραχύς, short Blenno– (Gr.) βλεννός, slime Byrsa (Gr.) βύρσα, hide, skin

C Calo (Gr.) κάλος, beautiful Chondro– (Gr.) χονδρός, granular, coarse Calyx (Gr.) κάλυξ, covering, shell, pod Chroo– (Gr.) χροός, χρώς, skin, flesh Camptylo– (Gr.) καμπύλος, bent, curved Cladus (Gr.) κλάδος, branch Capsa (L.) capsa, case, receptacle Clast– (Gr.) κλαστός, broken in pieces Carpella (Gr.) κάρπος, fruit Coelo– (Gr.) κόιλος, empty Caryo– (Gr.) κάρυον, a nut Coleus, Coleum (Gr.) κολεόν, sheath Catella (L.) catella, light chain Coccus (Gr.) κόκκος, grain, seed Catena (L.) catena, chain Coryne (Gr.) κορύνη, club, staff Cavum (L.) cavum, hole Crinis (L.) crinis, lock of hair, tress Chaete (Gr.) χαίτη, long hair Croco– (Gr.) κρόκεος, saffron colored Chamae– (Gr.) χαμαί, on the ground Cuspi– (L.) cuspis, sharp point, tip Chlamy– (Gr.) χλαμύς, mantle Cyano– (Gr.) κυάνεος, dark blue Chlor– (Gr.) χλωρός, light green Cystis (Gr.) κύστις, bladder

D Dasy– (Gr.) δασύς, hairy Dictyon (Gr.) δίκτυον, net Derma (Gr.) δέρμα, hide Dolicho– (Gr.) δολιχός, long Desmium, Desmo– (Gr.) δέσμος, band, binding Dolio– (Gr.) δολιός, crafty, deceitful (?) material Dicho– (Gr.) δίχη, in two

E Epi– (Gr.) ἐπί, upon, on Ento– (Gr.) ἐντός, inside, within Enchym (Gr.) ἐνχυμα, infusion Eu– (Gr.) εὐ, well Fottea 11(1): 9–16, 2011 15

F Fasciculus (L.) fasciculus, bundle, parcel

G Gemino– (L.) geminus, twin Gompho– (Gr.) γόμφος, pin, nail Glauco– (Gr.) γλαυκός, blue–green Granis (L.) granum, seed Gloeo–, Gloea– (Gr.) γλοιός, gum, resin, oil

H Halo– (Gr.) ἁλς, ἁλος, salt Homeo– (Gr.) ὁμοιος, like, resembling Hapalo– (Gr.) ἁπαλός, tender Hormo–, Hormato– (Gr.) ὁρμος, chain, necklace Herpyzo– (Gr.) ἑρπύζω, to creep, to crawl Hydro– (Gr.) ὑδωρ, water Hetero– (Gr.) ἑτερος, other Hypho– (Gr.) ὑφη, web

I Is(o)– (Gr.) ἰσος, equal

K Katagnymene (Gr.) κατάγνυμι, to break in pieces Kyrtu– (Gr.) κυρτός, curved, arched Kybus (Gr.) κύβος, cube

L Lepto– (Gr.) λεπτός, fine, small Lith(o)– (Gr.) λίθος, stone Limno– (Gr.) λίμνη, pool of water, lake

M Macro– (Gr.) μακρός, large Moron (Gr.) μωρός, sluggish Mastigo– (Gr.) μαστιγόω, to whip, to flog Morpha (Gr.) μορφή, shape Merismo– (Gr.) μερισμός, partition, division Myxo–, Myxa (Gr.) μύξα, discharge from the nose Micro– (Gr.) μίκρος, small

N Nema (Gr.) νήμα, thread Nodu– (L.) nodus, knot Nephron (G.) νεφρός, kidney

O Onko– (Gr.) ὀγκος, bulk, mass Oscilla– (L.) oscillum, swing

P Pannus (L.) pannus, piece of cloth, rag Pleuro– (Gr.) πλευρά, rib, flank Para– (Gr.) παρά, from beside, alongside Ploca (Gr.) πλοκή, web Pedia (Gr.) πεδίον, plain Podo– (Gr.) πούς, ποδός, foot Pelato– (Gr.) πελάτης, neighbor; coming closer Pogon (Gr.) πώγων, beard Phanon (Gr.) φανός, light, bright Poly– (Gr.) πολύς, many Phorm– (Gr.) φορμός, basket, mat Proter– (Gr.) πρότερος, before, in front Physa– (Gr.) φυσα, wind, air bubble Porphyro– (Gr.) πορφύριος, dark purple Placa (Gr.) πλάξ, πλακός, flat surface, plain Pseudo– (Gr.) ψεύδος, falsehood, lie Plankto– from (Gr.) πλάνος, wandering Pulvin– (L.) pulvinus, cushion, pillow Plecto– (Gr.) πλεκτή, coil, twisted rope Ptyche (Gr.) πτυχή, πτύξ, leaf, plate, fold 16 Or e n : Cyanobacterial nomenclature

R Radio (L.) radio, to shine Rhabdo– (Gr.) ῥάβδος, stick Raphi– (Gr.) ῥαφή, needle Rivularia (L.) rivulus, brook Restis (L.) restis, rope, cord Rubidi– (L.) rubidus, red

S Saccus (L.) saccus, bag Sphaer– (Gr.) σφαίρα, ball Sarcina (L.) sarcina, bundle Spir– (Gr.) σπείρα, (L.) spira, coil Schizo– (Gr.) σχίζω, to split Stauroma– (Gr.) σταύρωμα, palisade Scyto– (Gr.) σκυτος, leather, hide Sticho– (Gr.) στίξ , στίχος, row, line Siphon (Gr.) σίφων, tube, pipe Stylon (Gr.) στύλος, pillar Siro– Sira (Gr.) σειρά, cord, chain Sym–, Syn– (Gr.) συν, along with, together with Spelae– (Gr.) σπήλαιον, grotto, cave Sympho– (Gr.) συμφύω, to grow together Sperm– (Gr.) σπέρμα, seed Synecho– (Gr.) συνέχεια, continuity

T Tapino– (Gr.) ταπεινός, small, modest, weak Thrix (Gr.) θρίξ, θρίχος, hair Tetra– (Gr.) τετρα–, four Tholos (Gr.) θολός, mud, dirt Thalpo– (Gr.) θάλπος, warmth, heat Tolypo (Gr.) τολύπη, a ball of wool Thamn– (Gr.) θάμνος, bush, shrub Tricho, Trico– (Gr.) θρίξ, θρίχος, hair Thece (Gr.) θήκη, (L.) theca, case, box, chest Trypo– (Gr.) τρύπη, hole Thermo– (Gr.) θερμός, hot, warm Tycho– from ( ?) (Gr.) τύχη, chance, fortune Thio (Gr.) θειον, θέειον. sulfur

X Xeno– (Gr.) ξένος, guest, stranger

© Czech Phycological Society (2011) Recieved Sept 2010 Accepted Dec 2010